Supreme Court permits full enforcement of Trump's Travel Ban

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/12/04/supreme-court-permits-full-enforcement-trump-travel-ban.html

After months of attempts to obstruct this lawful travel ban, of course, Trump comes out on top.

Umm yay?

wow what an effective ban this will totally stop terrorism even though the country that funded 9/11 and funds mosques that promote extremist ideologies isnt banned.

Reply 3

Ninja Squirrel

20

Those judges should be embarrassed, blocking entire nations for no reason at all.

Original post by Chaz254

Military Industrial Complex is the reason for this. The USA and UK sell many weapons to Saudi Arabia.

Doesnt change that fact that its a ****ing useless ban that's not going to have any effect on terrorism and is designed to appease to his braindead followers and make them "feel" safe while contributing to a divisive rhetoric.

Reply 6

hannah00

18

The US doesnt really have a independent judiciary.

The President just picks his mates and they vote along party lines until they die

Reply 7

hannah00

18

Original post by Chaz254

The President can only have one Supreme Court judge, his current one being Neil Gorsuch. So, the President can't necessarily get what he wants, whenever he wants, since it takes much more than a single vote.

ok sure, he can only appoint them as they retire/die

but given the two party system and republican appointed judges majority, its not really a independent judiciary.

Reply 8

MrSuavetopia

19

Original post by Chaz254

The President can only have one Supreme Court judge, his current one being Neil Gorsuch. So, the President can't necessarily get what he wants, whenever he wants, since it takes much more than a single vote.

I'm sure you know that's incorrect. Presidents can nominate however many they want, it's just often restricted by them either not retiring/dying.

Your second point is correct however to a degree (That being that yes he needs more than one vote). However, the partisan nature of US politics means that invariably, Republican Presidents will nominate Conservative judges and vice versa. It stands to reason therefore that political ideology plays a massive part in how the court works. One only has to look at how much Republicans cried about Obama's nomination of Garland. The notion of a 'liberal judge' replacing Scalia was repulsive to them.

So there is some merit towards asserting that the US Supreme Court isn't entirely independent.

(edited 6 years ago)

Reply 9

hannah00

18

Original post by Chaz254

Sure, the Republicans have a majority. But they won't break any rules for Trump. They hold an extremely high and honourable position. They put Trump's ban into effect because there was no reason to prevent it.

Furthermore, the case is similar to the US branches of government (House, Senate). Republicans have a majority in all branches of US government, however they still can't get bills passed, as they please. You know why? Not all of them are as loyal to their party as you'd think. Not all Republicans support Trump and some blatantly obstruct bills which Trump is encouraging them to get on with. These are called RINOs (Republicans In Name Only).

I disagree. It doesnt count as "breaking any rules", as its the judges job to interpret them. Its easy to convince yourself something is the right way if youve been appointed by the party that proposed the order.

They cant stuff passed because of poor party management not because of a lack of loyalty(which doesnt really come into play with judges), the ultra conservative and conservatives disagree on how far right to do, they still agree on alot.

Just look at the candidate accused of dating minors, plenty of republicans still support him. The Loyalty is near blind

Reply 10

Pretty Flako

9

Original post by Chaz254

Fair enough. However I would still say Trump is somewhat of an exception to Republican blind loyalty. For example, a few Republicans (McCain (AZ) and Murkowski (AK)) voted against Trumpcare and it was those who had the deciding vote, because the vote was very close. The Republicans only have a slim majority, so it's important for them that there are no rebels.

Welcome to american politics. Such a shame your simple minded nature doesnt make you see the complex mechanisms that run the american govt.

Reply 11

Notoriety

22

Original post by hannah00

The US doesnt really have a independent judiciary.

The President just picks his mates and they vote along party lines until they die

The partisanship of Supreme Court justices is seriously overplayed. Most often the justices agree, and when they disagree tends not to be down party lines. The justices are eminent jurists, dealing mostly with bog-standard interpretation of Congress statutes. When they deal with "political" issues like this, it is the jurist who is making the decision. Not someone with supposedly conservative leanings. It is the media which politicises a rather mundane intellectual task.

You might say they are appointed by a political body, and indeed they are. But the process of scrutinising SC nominees is done most seriously, when the cameras are off. There is not a case where an ill-qualified judge has been appointed (see Gorsuch's ABA rating). Any perceived judicial inclination sought by a President and a majority in the Senate is incredibly slight.

Reply 12

icequeenTM

15

imma just be sat here laughing when his son in law gets indicted

Reply 13

MrSuavetopia

19

It's also worth noting that they haven't actually ruled yet as to whether the travel ban is constitutional or not. So saying it's a victory for Trump is a bit early.

Reply 14

Kuffar Sheikh

9

By human rights standards, majority of the world'd population would fall in the "savages" categories - they must not come to our lands where we enjoy basic human rights, and extend the same to others.

Reply 15

username1148663

21

Original post by Chaz254

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/12/04/supreme-court-permits-full-enforcement-trump-travel-ban.html

After months of attempts to obstruct this lawful travel ban, of course, Trump comes out on top.

Good

Reply 16

-Eirlys-

Debate & Current Affairs Helper

21

Moved to International

Reply 17

generallee

16

Original post by MrDystopia

It's also worth noting that they haven't actually ruled yet as to whether the travel ban is constitutional or not. So saying it's a victory for Trump is a bit early.

It is a good indicator that they will though.

Reply 18

Notoriety

22

Original post by generallee

It is a good indicator that they will though.

Not really. SC only stayed the operant injunctions while the Government delivers its appeal in the Court of Appeals 4d. It says nothing about what the SC would say if the substantive appeal were before them.

Staying the operant injunctions is the most natural (though neutral) reaction to the challenge. If it is true the Executive Order is pursuant to legitimate national security aims, which it could well be, then by allowing the injunction to subsist would do harm to the nation. Staying the injunction is the most natural response available to the SC. There is also a line of case law which says the courts will respect executive actions, i.e. actions which occur through the President's constitutional powers, until it is proven they are discriminatory or otherwise ultra vires. Again, it is the most neutral way to deal with the case at this stage. Inevitably the SC will deal with the case substantively and we'll see what they do think of the merits of the case.

Reply 19

generallee

16

Original post by Notorious_B.I.G.

Not really. SC only stayed the operant injunctions while the Government delivers its appeal in the Court of Appeals 4d. It says nothing about what the SC would say if the substantive appeal were before them.

Staying the operant injunctions is the most natural (though neutral) reaction to the challenge. If it is true the Executive Order is pursuant to legitimate national security aims, which it could well be, then by allowing the injunction to subsist would do harm to the nation. Staying the injunction is the most natural response available to the SC. There is also a line of case law which says the courts will respect executive actions, i.e. actions which occur through the President's constitutional powers, until it is proven they are discriminatory or otherwise ultra vires. Again, it is the most neutral way to deal with the case at this stage. Inevitably the SC will deal with the case substantively and we'll see what they do think of the merits of the case.

Well we'll see. Only two Justices (the extreme liberals Sotomayor and Ginsberg) voted against the stay.

The Statute seems pretty clear to a non lawyer like me, and it will take quite some twisting of language away from its real meaning for the SC to deem it unlawful. But then that is why (politicised) lawyers are so admired by the rest of us. Not.

Section 212(f), states: “Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or non immigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.”

(edited 6 years ago)

Supreme Court permits full enforcement of Trump's Travel Ban

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you